LGBTQIA+

The Bible is used by many Christians as the source of authority for their faith.  We often hear phrases like “the Bible says” or “the Bible teaches” or “it says in the Bible that…” and often these are introductions to statements which are hurtful or offensive! 

​

I debated with conservative commentator Anne Atkins about homosexuality and accused her of being prejudiced.  She assured me that she wasn’t – it was just that the Bible was anti-gay so she had to be.  I almost had the sense she was sorry about this!  Yet the truth is that the Bible doesn’t “say” anything. 

​

The Bible is a collection of books written over hundreds of years and covering thousands of years of history.  It is used in different ways by different people and is made up of different styles of writing by different authors writing in incredibly different contexts from each other and from us. 

​

This should be our starting place when seeking to understand the Bible and it’s authority.

​

The first Christians were Jewish and used what we now refer to as the Old Testament as their Bible.  The Church didn’t agree the shape and content of the New Testament until the Council of Nicea in 325.  They kept the Old Testament as it was the Bible that Jesus and the apostles would have known and was believed to foretell the long-promised Messiah.

​

The books that were recognised as being authoritative in what we now call the New Testament were related to one or other of the Apostles; this apostolic link is what gave them authority. 

​

So Matthew’s Gospel was deemed to have been written by Jesus’ disciple, Matthew.  Mark was seen to be linked with Peter in Rome.  Luke was seen to be another disciple and John was identified with the “beloved disciple” of Jesus.  Acts was written by Luke and the various letters were attributed to, mainly, Paul and four other apostles – James, John, Peter and James.  There was some debate about Revelation but there was some sense that the writer was also the writer of John’s Gospel.

​

Current Biblical scholarship would dispute much of these traditional attributions.  Other gospels and letters were circulating around the Early Church.  You may have heard of the Gospel of Thomas or the Epistle of Clement.  These didn’t get into the New Testament for a variety of reasons.  Some of them taught theology which was at odds with the Christian faith – with especially odd views of women – some of them weren’t linked to the original apostles and so were seen to have less authority.

​

The Church, therefore, had to decide which books were authoritative and they did so based on their links, real or supposed, with Jesus’ first apostles.  Even as late at the 16th Century the Protestant Reformer, Martin Luther, who wanted to stress the supremacy of Scripture as a source of authority wanted to remove the Epistle of James from the New Testament as he disagreed with its authority!

​

Many contemporary evangelical Christians are taught that the Bible is the supreme source of authority for a Christian.  They are not taught too much about how the Bible came to take on its current shape.  They are taught that there are no errors in the Bible – some are taught that the Bible is infallible.  By understanding the Bible as “the word of God” they attribute great authority to it and are most likely to use phrases like “the Bible says” when discussing faith or morals.

​

Other Christians, especially from Roman Catholic backgrounds, recognise another authority in their spiritual lives  - that of the Church.  The Catholic church teaches that God has revealed Himself to humanity through both Scripture and through the teaching of the Church.  They would recognise that the Church decided which books were authoritative – no doubt under God’s guidance.  This works out in practice as looking at how the Church understands now, or has understood in the past, a particular passage or theological idea in the Bible.

​

Another source of authority Christians have used in working out what they should believe or how they should act is that of conscience.  The Quakers believe that conscience is the voice of God speaking within us and this idea has found favour with more liberal Christians who balance a particular Biblical passage or idea, the view of the wider Church on that idea and their own conscience.  This is a contentious idea in contemporary Roman Catholic theology as more and more Catholics follow their own conscience on issues like birth control or divorce and, in doing so, ignore or reject the official teaching of their church. 

​

Other Christians have introduced yet another source of authority into this complex area – that of human reason.  We can use our God-given reason as we look at what the sciences and our own logic teach.  This is seen most often in the debate around homosexuality.  If (and it’s a big if) science shows that human sexuality is probably innate and not a choice then the traditional teaching of the church that homoerotic behaviour is as much of a choice as is lying is called into question. 

​

Contemporary Christians, it seems to me, need to balance these four sources of authority when we think about ethics and theology – the Bible, the Church, our own Conscience and human Reason.  We also need to be wary of them all!  Human reason can be faulty – after all our greatest scientists have designed nuclear weapons and ever more creative ways to pollute our planet.  Human conscience can be trained to approve of evil.  The Church has repressed and persecuted people in its history and many parts of the Bible have been used to oppress women, defend slavery, support apartheid and excuse war.  This isn’t to say that we can’t use the Bible, or any other source, reliably but it reflects that it’s difficult and the debates are very rarely as clear cut as conservative Christians would have us believe. 

To say the Bible condemns lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, and that such condemnation should be followed today, is to oversimplify a complex issue. Parts of the Bible do seem to condemn us but, when compared with other, equally problematic and often sexist passages, it is clear that the phrase, "the Bible says" is not a sufficient argument for anything.   We do need to be aware, however, about how certain texts and ideas have been used to condemn minorities.  Some theologians call this a “hermeneutic of suspicion”.

​

This leaves us with working out what is meant when Christians describe the Bible as the “Word of God”.  I think there are a number of possibilities.

​

Fundamentalist Christians would say that the Bible is the Word of God in that it contains everything we need to know about faith and morals.  They would say that the Bible is infallible and that, if we correctly understand it, the Bible is reliable for us.  This works out in a literal view of the 6 day creation account in Genesis for example. 

Conservative Christians prefer to think of the process of inspiration where God guided the writers and editors of the Bible so that what God wanted is in the Bible but they wouldn’t say it was infallible.  They would seek to recognise different styles of writing, the views of different editors and would recognise a sense of complexity here.  So the 6 day creation account may be a way of explaining the fact that God created the universe and the term “day” may mean “aeon”. 

​

Liberal Christians prefer to think of inspiration in a different way.  It is an inspiring read, it contains a variety of different literature which has been through a long process of editing and revision.  Like Aesop’s fables, the Bible is a book which contains truth but shouldn’t be seen as literally true.  Many of the stories in the Bible are myths – they are stories which contain truth.  Thus the creation account is simply a myth developed by the ancients to illustrate the truth that God created the universe.

​

Another perspective is what I call an incarnational approach.  Just as Christians see Jesus as the incarnation of God as a human, so the Bible is a mix of human words, ideas, editing and bias with the ideas that God wished to be conveyed.   The task of the Christian, therefore, is to work out what God is trying to convey through a particular passage and differentiate this from the words and edits of humans. 

​

We also realise that we make sense of the Bible together.  One of the hallmarks of the Protestant Reformation was the idea that God directly speaks to an individual believer as that person reads Scripture.  In recent years we have re-discovered the idea that that God speaks to us and moves amongst us in community as we together seek to discern the mind of God. 

Bearing all this in mind we turn to look now at the various passages which are used against LGBT people.

​

In the book of Genesis (Chapter 19) the story is told of two visitors to the city of Sodom, who were in fact angels in disguise, visiting the house of Lot - a Jewish, and hence foreign, inhabitant of the city. The story goes: "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called out to Lot 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them'. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind them saying: 'No, my friends, don't do this wicked thing......'" 

​

After this Lot offers his daughters to appease the crowd. Eventually the angels step in and manage to defeat the mob. Later on in the story, Sodom is destroyed because of the actions of the inhabitants of the city.

It is interesting to note that Lot is portrayed as the good man, the spiritual one, and yet his actions of offering his daughters to the crowd are reported without comment. To approve of this is to approve of rape!

To say the city was destroyed because of homosexuality is misleading, and ignores other parts of the Bible and a long tradition of interpretation of these texts.

​

Firstly the Book of Isaiah (1:10 & 3:9) and Ezekiel (16:49) claim that social injustice and oppression of the poor was the root cause. Other parts of the Bible say that it was the city's treatment of visitors which was wrong. In the ancient world it was imperative in most cultures to treat visitors with respect and honour. Gang raping them would be quite silly! Jesus says, in Luke's Gospel, that Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality (Lk 10:12).

​

This interpretation continued in the Early Church and also in Jewish interpretations. The Midrash, a Jewish commentary, and an Early Church theologian called Origen, both state that it was this breaking of the rules on how to treat visitors that got Sodom into trouble.

​

Therefore, it can be argued - from within the Bible itself - that the destruction of Sodom was because of oppression of the poor and mistreatment of outsiders: nothing to do with Lesbians and Gays. Feminist theologians will also want to question Lot's apparent willingness to hand his daughters over to a mad crowd to face certain death. To claim that trying to commit gang rape on strangers is equivalent to consenting gay or lesbian sex is to fly in the face of what the Bible itself says.

​

This book in the Bible is concerned with giving huge chunks of the Law, observed today by Orthodox Jews. It is concerned with stating what behaviour and moral codes separate out the Jewish people from the surrounding nations and is very clear in prohibiting behaviour which was part of the worship of fertility gods and goddesses. The two passages which are used to condemn us read:-  "Do not lie with a man as with a woman; that is detestable." (18:22)  "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." (20:13)

​

The questions around this text for us today are quite interesting. Firstly there are very few Christians who take this book seriously. If we are to obey these two passages then we should obey all the book which condemns: cutting men's hair, eating meat with blood in it (eg: rare steak), eating rabbit or certain kinds of seafood (like mussels or shellfish), sexual intercourse during menstruation, cross-breeding cattle, and wearing garments made out of more than one material. If we are quite happy to do all of the above, then why on earth should we not be happy being lesbian or gay?

​

An interpretation based on feminist thought would also question the assumptions made in the text. Firstly, they only apply to men. Obviously the writers, having something in common with Queen Victoria, didn't think women did things like this! Secondly, they assume that women take the passive role in sex and that this is inherently demeaning. The tone of the passage is that if you are passive in penetrative intercourse you become less of a man and more like a woman. This is seen as being shameful. Apart from the fact that we do an awful lot more with each other in bed than penetration, the passage assumes that women are less equal than men. This passage is sexist and irrelevant. Also it concerns laws and behaviours that most people would not wish, or see any need, to keep today.

​

This book is written by St Paul who was a Jewish convert to Christianity and who devoted his life to spreading the Christian message to non-Jews. He travelled around the Roman Empire preaching and founding churches. He then wrote to them regularly giving advice on how to live a Christian life in a non-Christian secular world. Some of these letters have been preserved in the Bible.

​

Paul's point in the Book of Romans is to show that God has made salvation possible for all humanity and starts out by highlighting the need the human race has for this salvation. He speaks, at some length, on his perceived evils of the world and in this context the following words appear: "Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (1:26-27) This is the only passage that explicitly mentions women in a context often construed to mean homoerotic relationships.  The passage is much debated and a gallons and gallons of scholarly ink has been expended on working out what Paul may have meant.  There are some problems with automatically assuming his words apply today.

​

Roman patterns of sexuality were very different from our own.  A Roman citizen was entitled to have penetrative sex with his wife, his slaves (male or female), prostitutes, freedmen or freedwomen and a young man who had not yet reached adulthood (normally conceived of as a “boy” between the ages of 13 and 20). 

Romans thought that male homoerotic behaviour was the result of an excess of desire not, as we do, as of a different type of desire.  A Roman might defend himself against the charge of being effeminate by pointing out that he’d seduced his accuser’s son!  However, Roman sexual behaviour was tightly prescribed. 

​

To take on the penetrated role in sex was seen as shameful, oral sex was problematic as in Roman thought they couldn’t quite discern who was active and who was passive and sex between women was viewed with horror as was a man giving oral sex to a woman.  Women were to be passive and submissive, two women together in bed involved (in Roman thought) at least one taking the active dominant role.  A succession of Roman emperors had behaved disgracefully (in Roman eyes) by playing the passive role in sex with other men (it was the passivity not the gender of the partner that was problematic). 

​

Religion played a part in Roman sexuality too.  The cult of the Great Mother was popular and the worship of Cybele (one manifestation of the Great Mother) involved male priests (Gallii) castrating themselves in an ecstatic frenzy and then being penetrated by women using artificial phalluses. 

​

Some scholars think Paul’s reference to the women referred to this goddess worship.  They think this because in Romans 1 Paul mentions three signs that humanity had turned away from God; the first two of these are idolatry so it is reasonable to presume that the third sign – the sexual behaviour noted in 1:26-27 – is also a sign of idolatry.

​

Paul, like all Jews of his age, understood that humanity was once monotheistic but had turned away from God to worship idols.  Jews saw sexual depravity as a sign of this idolatry. 

​

Many contemporary Christians think that Paul’s meaning in Romans 1 is about humanity’s fall into sin and is an allusion to the Genesis account of creation.  But Paul doesn’t mention creation or Genesis.  Instead, he is writing about humanity’s fall from monotheism – something that all Jews in Paul’s world believed happened. 

​

You can see a parallel to the Romans passage in the Book of Wisdom chapters 13 – 15 where the link is made between idolatry and sexual immorality.  No one now believes that humanity was once uniformly monotheistic and then fell into idol worship.  Instead it seems that there was a move from polytheism to monotheism.  So the myth underlying Paul’s condemnation of this behaviour is not one we’d use now. 

​

Another interesting aspect of this passage is the word “use”.  The women gave up the “natural use” of their sex.  In this passage there is clearly a sexual overtone to his.  But in the letter to Philemon Paul uses the term about the slave Onesimus who had been “useful” to him and would be useful to “Philemon”.  In an age when masters had total sexual rights over their slaves it’s interesting that Paul sent a slave back to his master, particularly using the term “use”. 

If Paul was making a general condemnation of homoeroticism then the Gospel could not have been good news for slaves who had to engage in homoerotic behaviour with their masters.

​

The simple fact is that the types of homoerotic behaviour Paul saw in his world are far removed from those in our world.  We do not see homoeroticism as a punishment for idolatry (as Paul did), indeed lesbian and gay Christains are, by definition, monotheistic.  We do not conceive of sexual behaviour in terms of patriarchy and power as the Romans did.  We don’t see it shameful to play a particular role in sex – nor do we see sexual roles as being definitions for life as Romans did – to be seen as the passive partner in male homoeroticism was incredibly shameful. 

Whatever Paul meant is very different from the patterns of lesbian and gay behaviour in our contemporary world which, more and more, reflect the wider heterosexual patterns of behaviour.   

​

Paul clearly felt that the behaviour he condemned was unnatural. It is also obvious from reading other writings that he thinks that having women preach in church, or to be ministers is wrong, (because it was a woman who led Adam astray in the first place) and that they will only be saved by childbirth (1 Tim 2:9-15). Paul states in his first letter to the Corinthian church (11:14) that it is unnatural for men to have long hair! In this last passage Paul uses the same Greek words (para phusin) as he does when condemning Lesbians and Gays.

​

If traditional churches wish us to understand Paul's words here as applying to contemporary lesbians and gays, then they will also have to condemn men with long hair, women ministers, and state that women will only get to Heaven if they have babies (I think someone should have told Mother Teresa!).

​

Until the main Christian churches start preaching Paul properly I see no reason why we can't say that he was heavily influenced by the prevailing sexism, homophobia and patriarchy of his background as well as his understanding of humanity’s fall from monotheism.  This means his words should be taken with a pinch of salt (albeit a very large one!).

​

The church in Corinth had written to Paul for advice on some particular issues and whilst the original letter is lost, Paul's answer has been preserved for us in the Bible. Likewise, the letter to Timothy was advice from Paul to a young Overseer, or Bishop, who was responsible for spreading the Christian message. In both letters Paul uses a word to describe gay men which is very unusual and which modern Bibles cannot agree on how to translate into English.

The word ("arsenokoitai") appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Many think it just means homosexual men. If this is the case then the arguments presented above about the passage in Romans still apply here. However, some scholars, notably the late Professor John Boswell of Yale University, have said that the word refers to sacred prostitutes. These would have been young men who worked in the temples of the fertility gods popular in the ancient world. Their function was to play the part of the god whilst the worshipper/client had sex with them. This was supposed to ensure a good harvest and was seen as a form of worship! Obviously Paul would not recommend such interesting worship services to those who were committed to following the life and example of Jesus. There are two texts, one in the Letter of Jude and one in the Second Letter of Peter, which are clearly related to each other - in fact the text in 2 Peter is dependent on Jude.  Both take their examples from the Sodom and Gomorrah story and both are designed to show how God will destroy those who do not believe (Jude) or those who teach heresy (2 Peter).  The relevant texts are: "Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."  (Jude 1:7)

"...and if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the lawless ..., then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment - especially those who indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority."  (2 Peter 2:6-10) The irrelevance of the 'unnatural lust' and 'depraved lust' in the texts with regard to modern-day gay and lesbian relationships is affirmed by the arguments applied to the Sodom and Gomorrah story which have been put forward previously.

​

To say the Bible condemns lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, and that such condemnation should be followed today, is to oversimplify a complex issue. Parts of the Bible do appear superficially to condemn us but, when compared with other, equally problematic and often sexist passages, it is clear that the phrase, "the Bible says..." is not a sufficient argument for anything.

​

When dealing with the Bible we need to be aware of what it says about itself - especially in the story of Sodom and also to see how it has been used over the ages. We need to develop, what feminist theologians call, 'an interpretation of suspicion' which questions how texts either affirm or condemn women, lesbians, gays and other minorities.

​

Many people disagree with lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgendered folk living our lives in the way we want to. Often they use the Bible as a weapon against us.

​

This is appalling as the Bible was never intended to be used in this way. The Bible never discusses sexual orientation as such; neither does it discuss gender re-assignment. The Bible verses used to condemn and reject lesbian, gay and transgendered people are twisted out of context, distorted and incorrectly translated to hurt people.

No reference to sexual orientation or gender identity exists in the Bible. This is because the ancients didn’t think about sexuality in the way we do now – the Romans, for example, saw homoerotic desire as being an extension of heteroeroticism, whereas we think of them as being quite different. It simply wasn’t possible to change gender in the ancient world.

​

Despite this, many Christians tell us to "obey" or "follow" the Bible. Here we give you some questions to ask your friends when they start to quote the Bible at you. We suspect you will have some fun with this…

There are many problems with taking the Bible entirely literally......

​

Pleasing Odours:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is that my neighbours don't think it is a pleasing odour.....I wonder if I should smite them.

​

Slavery:

I would like to sell my niece into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 but I really don't know, in this day and age, what would be a fair price for her........

​

Unclean Women:

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15: 19-24). The problem I have is knowing when a woman is having her period. I have tried asking but most women seem to resent being asked.......

​

Keeping the Sabbath:

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 states that he should be put to death. I can't work out if I am morally obliged to kill him myself......

​

Hair Styles & Tattoos:

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, some of them have it trimmed very severely indeed. Some of my friends have some very nice tattoos. These are expressly forbidden in Leviticus 19: 27-28 and I wonder how they should die.......

 

It's hard to be a farmer:

My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. He also tends to swear and blaspheme a lot. I wonder if it is really necessary that we go to the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them as required in Leviticus 24: 10-16. I feel sure we could just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws as proscribed in Leviticus 20:14.

​

After a few of these you may have made your point! The Bible is a wonderful book which Christians believe is both inspired by God but also written by humans. As Christians we have to discern the Word of God in the midst of those human words.

​

You might also find this YouTube clip from the West Wing television drama interesting. In the clip, President Bartlett challenges the homophobic broadcasting of a radio talk-show presenter. The script for this sequence echoes many of the biblical inconsistencies described above.

​

But What About the New Testament?

Of course Christians might claim that all these Laws no longer apply as the New Testament is our rule of faith. However the Book of Acts, chapter 15 - in the New Testament - commands all Christians to abstain from meat which has blood in it or which comes from a strangled animal. Most Christians, however, do not condemn the eating of rare steak or turkey at Christmas!

​

So Is The Bible True?

Of course it is. The Bible is a unique record of the historical basis of our faith and contains the Word of God. The task of Christians is to separate out the words of God and the words of people who spoke and wrote in ways no longer appropriate to our culture. The Bible is a liberating book if understood correctly. However, it can be dangerous if used as a tool to hurt and oppress others. Like all valuable things, the Bible has to be understood and used correctly.

​

The way the Bible is interpreted is very much influenced by the culture and world views of those who do the interpreting. In recent years more LGBT people have been reading the Bible in different ways, questioning the assumptions that previous generations have made and wondering if some characters in the Bible were in same sex relationships.  This page looks at some Biblical passages and asks whether we can see homoerotic relationships in Scripture.  It is a way of looking at the Bible with new eyes.

​

Jesus Affirmed A Centurion's Love For His Male Lover

There is a passage in St Matthew's (8:5-13) and St Luke's (7:1-10) gospels where Jesus healed the "servant" of a Roman centurion. In St Matthew, we are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of his "servant". Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion's house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so — he believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his "servant" would be healed. Marvelling at the man's faith, Jesus pronounced the "servant" healed. Luke tells a similar story. 

​

In the original language, the importance of this story for gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians is much clearer. The Greek word used in St. Matthew's account to refer to the "servant" of the centurion is "pais". In the Greek of the time, "pais" had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean "son or boy"; it could mean "servant"; or it could mean a particular type of slave — one who was "his master's male lover."

Often these lovers were younger than their masters, even teenagers. To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover seems repugnant. But we have to place this in the context of ancient cultural norms. In ancient times, commercial transactions were the predominant means of forming relationships. Under the law, the wife was viewed as the property of the husband, with a status just above that of slave. Moreover, in Jesus' day, a boy or girl was considered of marriageable age upon reaching his or her early teens. It was not uncommon for boys and girls to marry at age 14 or 15. Nor was it uncommon for an older man to marry a young girl.

Fortunately civilization has changed, but these were the norms in the culture of Jesus' day. In that culture, if you were a gay man who wanted a male partner you achieved this, like your heterosexual counterparts, through a commercial transaction —often purchasing someone to serve that purpose. A slave purchased to serve this purpose was often called a 'pais'. Jesus doesn't condemn the centurion for having a male lover, but heals the lover and tells the crowd that the centurion is full of faith.

​

Ruth and Naomi

The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi. Her feelings are celebrated, not condemned.

​

Throughout Christian history, Ruth's vow to Naomi has been used to illustrate the nature of the marriage covenant. These words are often read at Christian weddings and used in sermons to illustrate the ideal love that spouses should have for one another. The fact that these words were originally spoken by one woman to another tells us a lot about how God feels about same-gender love.

​

This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father's family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can't offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she'll only be a burden. One, sensibly, returns home. But the other, Ruth, cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

​

The Book of Genesis draws an important theological conclusion from Adam's experience. It says that, for this reason (i.e., the need for companionship), a man should leave his father and mother when he grows up and "cling" ("dabaq") to his wife. And, of course, for the vast majority of human beings, that is God's will for them — for a man and woman to leave their parents home and form a relationship with each other that is so close, so intimate, that they can be described as "clinging" to one another. Ruth 1:14 shows that — without apology, embarrassment, or qualification — Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth's feelings are celebrated. In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words: "Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" (Ruth 1:16-17)

​

The passage shows that God affirms committed love between two people of the same sex. 

​

David and Jonathan

You may have heard Jonathan and David's story, but if you're like most people, you have probably never looked at it closely. Some Christians point to Jonathan and David as an example of idealized male bonding — a type of "brotherly love" not "stained" by the romantic entanglements of male-female relationships.

​

The Bible however, is completely inconsistent with this strained interpretation.

We can see in three passages the great romantic love David and Jonathan had for each other:

"When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

To give another all one's goods and symbols of power is a sure sign of love. If Jonathan's name had been substituted by a woman's name, everyone would see that this is the start of a love story.

​

Then we have the family dinner from hell when Jonathan gets home....

"You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established." (1 Samuel 20:30) References to "nakedness" indicate a sexual subject and clearly Saul, Jonathan's father who is speaking, is disturbed.  Saul is, of course, concerned that Jonathan, the heir to the throne, is submitting to David - who was popular with the people. Saul had not consolidated his hold on the throne and was clearly worried that he was not starting a dynasty.   One implication is that Jonathan's love for David is bringing sexual shame on the family and there is the problem that Jonathan's love for David threatens his own place in the succession. This is no normal friendship. 

​

After the dinner Jonathan ran to see David: "David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more." (1 Samuel 20:41) Clearly each needed comfort. After Jonathan's death in battle David laments:

"I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan; Greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."(2 Samuel 2:27)

​